FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FRCH.L (Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF) and HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - FRCH.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while HMCA.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FRCH.L returned -3.83%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for HMCA.L. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FRCH.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCA.L.

Performance

FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FRCH.L) and HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FRCH.L achieves a -6.14% return, which is significantly lower than HMCA.L's 8.77% return.

FRCH.L

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: -2.10%
• YTD: -6.14%
• 6M: -8.12%
• 1Y: 7.54%
• 3Y*: 8.07%
• 5Y*: -3.83%
• 10Y*: —

HMCA.L

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 1.89%
• YTD: 8.77%
• 6M: 11.73%
• 1Y: 37.20%
• 3Y*: 8.50%
• 5Y*: 0.05%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FRCH.L Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF	-6.14%	23.22%	21.12%	-17.46%	-13.83%	-19.34%	26.80%	-10.87%
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF	8.77%	17.38%	13.48%	-18.58%	-17.12%	4.17%	39.06%	9.31%

Correlation

The correlation between FRCH.L and HMCA.L is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2019	0.74

The correlation between FRCH.L and HMCA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FRCH.L	HMCA.L
Consumer Cyclical	24.5%	5.2%
Financial Services	18.3%	17.5%
Communication Services	16.4%	1.3%
Technology	11.3%	32.1%
Industrials	7.9%	15.4%
Basic Materials	5.6%	11.2%
Healthcare	5.5%	3.8%
Energy	3.5%	3.2%
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	6.6%
Utilities	2.0%	3.3%
Real Estate	1.7%	0.5%

Return for Risk

FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

FRCH.L

FRCH.L Risk / Return Rank: 15
FRCH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
FRCH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FRCH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 15
FRCH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
FRCH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 14

HMCA.L

HMCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 73
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FRCH.L) and HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	FRCH.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.43	2.42	-1.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.71	3.23	-2.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.43	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.48	5.29	-4.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.00	15.02	-14.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FRCH.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.43, which is lower than the HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FRCH.L and HMCA.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FRCH.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43	2.42	-1.99
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.12	0.00	-0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.04	0.28	-0.32

Drawdowns

FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FRCH.L drawdown since its inception was -56.27%, which is greater than HMCA.L's maximum drawdown of -44.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FRCH.L and HMCA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FRCH.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.27%	-44.23%	-12.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.77%	-7.00%	-8.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.42%	-26.19%	-3.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-49.18%	-41.62%	-7.56%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.36%	-10.21%	-21.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.72%	-17.96%	-11.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.53%	2.47%	+5.06%

Volatility

FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FRCH.L) has a higher volatility of 6.61% compared to HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) at 5.46%. This indicates that FRCH.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HMCA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FRCH.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.61%	5.46%	+1.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.34%	10.35%	+1.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.57%	15.33%	+2.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.60%	21.22%	+11.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.15%	22.88%	+8.27%

FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FRCH.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than HMCA.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

FRCH.L vs. HMCA.L - Dividend Comparison

FRCH.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.68%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FRCH.L Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF	1.68%	1.76%	1.97%	2.20%	1.76%	1.09%	0.88%	1.78%	0.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FRCH.L and HMCA.L in my portfolio?

FRCH.L and HMCA.L have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FRCH.L or HMCA.L?

On fees, FRCH.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FRCH.L or HMCA.L?

FRCH.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for HMCA.L.

What is the main difference between FRCH.L and HMCA.L?

FRCH.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while HMCA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FRCH.L and 0.30% for HMCA.L.